I'm not sure if you are aware, but the pilots at the controls of these UAS, for the most part, are in fact military aviators. Ones who have either been grounded for one reason or another, or in the Army's case, Warrants who are Aviation branched and fall under all the same regulations as its regular rotary and fixed wing aviators. So they are indeed pilots, and more importantly officers, charged with carrying out the orders of the Commander in Chief. I have no knowledge of other DOD controlled assets (CIA drones for ex). But I'm willing to bet their guys are as well vetted as ours are

I have a bit of confusion as to which part of the story your sarcasm was directed, was your sarcasm directed at the professionalism of the operators of the UAS or the mission described by the CNN story?

Quoting Army15P (Reply 1):have a bit of confusion as to which part of the story your sarcasm was directed, was your sarcasm directed at the professionalism of the operators of the UAS or the mission described by the CNN story?

My sarcasm was in congratulating these skilled professional pilots for their "bravery." I suppose we could also have "infantrymen" who sit with a joystick and operate infantry robots from a secure base. Maybe that is only a couple years away. I just don't want to get shot by a robot, and I don't think the average Pakistani probably appreciates it very much either. But as long as we are cooperating with the good people, and not the bad people, maybe it is okay. It's just a method that is going to raise some extra animosity, or it would in my community. A robot with a gun is not my idea of bravery or justice. Is a missile the same thing, kind of yes, but this is taking it further.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):A robot with a gun is not my idea of bravery or justice.

Behind the controls of that "robot with a gun" is a soldier, using his or her knowledge and judgment to carry out the mission. That, in my opinion, is deserving of respect.

However...

In my opinion, people who fly manned aircraft are pilots, and people who fly UAVs are operators.

Piloting an manned aircraft requires a unique combination of skill and abilities...the ability to interpret changing weather conditions beyond textual descriptions, for example. And the ability to ignore your impending demise and revert to flows and training when faced with a potentially fatal scenario.

Both jobs deserve respect, but aircraft pilots posses abilities and levels of understanding that handily exceed that of UAV operators.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):A robot with a gun is not my idea of bravery or justice. Is a missile the same thing, kind of yes, but this is taking it further

Flighty, you need to recalibrate your thinking on how drones operate. Drones represent a step back on the slippery slope path of killing from a distance technology provided by cruise missiles and smart bombs. Not further down the road of this moral concern of yours.

With smart weapons, the operator/pilot enters coordinates, pushes a button and departs. Almost never seeing more than what look like ants as the target.

Drone operator/pilots use telescopic cameras to identify their targets, sometimes by face. In this regard the operator/pilot is very much like a sniper. Seeing the face of men I have killed is something I am glad I do not need to sleep with. I greatly respect and thank the men that are asked to perform this duty.

Wow, I didn't know the US military is in the middle east to perform acts of sheer bravery!

Is this worse than a cruise missile? How about an artillery attack? Push a button and your munitions are away, on a path for destruction of whatever wanders into the kill zone?

A UAV is just one small step down from a actual piloted jet. Only difference is that there is a pilot in one and a operator in the other via satellite data link. Both fly out of effective ID by human eye range and rely on cameras and other intel for targeting and ID.

I think you need to understand UAVs and how they operate a tid bit better.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):Wow, I didn't know the US military is in the middle east to perform acts of sheer bravery!

I used the word "respect:" not "bravery". Bravery is used for men like my uncle that landed on Juno.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):Only difference is that there is a pilot in one and a operator in the other via satellite data link. Both fly out of effective ID by human eye range and rely on cameras and other intel for targeting and ID.

If you believe that a pilot sitting in a jet aircraft risking his life and a remote operator sitting in a safe location flying a slow propeller driven drone take the same risks to identify a target and have the same loiter time and proximity to target "I think you need to understand UAVs and how they operate a tid bit better".

Quoting CTR (Reply 4):I greatly respect and thank the men that are asked to perform this duty.

That's fine; I think respect is good. I am simply hoping they are killing the right people. It would be even better if Pakistan could grow a pair and actually police their country. For us to do so from the air is... a little weird.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 8):I presume from your post you prefer to be shot by a live person as well...?

Yes, is that difficult to understand? I am a human; I don't want to be lectured to and then shot at by some hopped up toaster oven put together by a bunch of nerds. In this country we have the right to face our accuser, at least in some sense. The history of warfare is very long. I think human contact is important, even in war, from a moral point of view.

We could probably manufacture enough UAVs to conquer entire countries. The capabilities are expanding fast. DARPA is also working on robot ground vehicles. Potentially, we could occupy regions without a single homo sapiens actually there. Many people point out this makes war more politically palatable, hence it makes our policymakers start more wars, since none of our "soldiers" or "operators" would actually be at risk.

There is something inherently balancing and fair about mutual risk of our soldiers and the innocents who die. If some of their innocents are killed, we should have some of our skin at risk also, as a sign of respect. But also, as a political check against unnecessary war.

Quoting Flighty (Thread starter):Pakistan has been publicly critical of drone attacks, arguing that they fuel support for the militants.

What would happen if Pakistan decided to shoot these drones down, afterall they are invading Pakistans sovereign airspace, they probably have every right to do this and I don't think the US could cry foul.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 10):What would happen if Pakistan decided to shoot these drones down, afterall they are invading Pakistans sovereign airspace, they probably have every right to do this and I don't think the US could cry foul.

These attacks have the tacit support of the Pakistani civilian government. Do you think they would have waited this long before shooting down the drones, if they were that unwelcome?

Pakistan publicly denounces these attacks, but that is to prevent a massive popular uprising and possible retaliation against the US and or Pakistan government. These drone attacks would not have been carried out with such impunity without the Pakistani government support.

How so? A UAV operator picks the target, when to hit, or if to hit at all. A cruise missile is really just highly accurate rocket propelled artillery.

The 'nerds' that designed and built those UAVs are the same nerds who built and designed the F-22, the F-35, B-2... they are called engineers.

I dont think the method used to kill someone really matters... would you rather a bullet, IED, land mine, tank, napalm, RPG, or laser? They all suck, they are meant to suck. They all can end a person's life quickly, whether delivered from a tank, jet, or UAV.